The Bend Motorsport Park

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL (14:49): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before asking the Leader of the Government, representing the Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment, a question in relation to the Tailem Bend motorsport park.

Leave granted.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: Yesterday's version of InDailyhas a story which suggests that the Marshall government is considering suspending a range of state laws for the operation of The Bend Motorsport Park at Tailem Bend, owned by the state's biggest private company, Peregrine Corporation. The article states:

InDaily understands the Shahin family-owned Peregrine has approached the Government to request the formulation of an Indenture Act to govern the 700-plus hectare site, which would re-write the laws on environment protection matters such as native vegetation and noise regulations, as well as liquor licensing and vehicle registrations.

The article goes on to say:

In response to inquiries about the possible introduction of an Indenture Bill, a spokesperson for Trade, Tourism and Investment Minister David Ridgway said he met in January 'with representatives of Peregrine Corporation to discuss the world-class Bend Motorsport Park'.

The quote from the minister's office statement is:

'Various matters, including liquor licensing, noise regulations and vehicle registrations during events were raised and the government is currently considering these issues'…

The article goes on:

In response to further inquiries, the spokesperson confirmed 'native vegetation' was another of the matters raised during discussions.

I note that in the year 2017, the previous government gazetted three separate regulations to exempt the Tailem Bend motorsport park from planning laws, environment laws and native vegetation laws. My question of the minister is:

1. Has the Peregrine Corporation complied with all of the conditions of their current regulated exemptions, including payment of funds into the Native Vegetation Fund by way of significant environmental benefit and preparation of a native vegetation management plan?

2. Does the minister think that exempting big companies from having to comply with state laws sends the right signal to other law-abiding citizens and companies that the government is committed to a level playing field for business in this state?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS (Treasurer) (14:52): I am happy to take the honourable member's questions on notice, in particular the issues in relation to compliance. What I can indicate is that, certainly to my knowledge, there is no intention of the government to bring in an indenture act. There is no doubting, from what the member has quoted as the minister's spokesperson indicating, that clearly they have raised a range of issues with this government and probably the former government.

I think, as the minister's spokesperson was quoted as saying, the government will address those particular issues over a period in the future, I guess. I am not sure what time frame minister Ridgway has in mind. Clearly, it wouldn't be minister Ridgway's responsibility for a number of those pieces of legislation. They would be in other ministers' areas and therefore there would need to be discussions with those ministers.

I do know that one of the issues that has been raised for a significant amount of time is the potential issue in relation to noise control legislation. I think one of the concerns from the operators, as I understand it—and I will stand corrected if I am wrong—is that there is the power, essentially, to withdraw whatever current provisions there are at a moment's notice, so that the organisers of the park may well have organised a motorsport event 12 months down the track and engaged in expenditure and arrangements only to have a particular exemption, or whatever it might technically be called, removed at a moment's notice, which, of course, would make the operation of a motorsport park and a motor event clearly very difficult, or not difficult: impossible.

I am aware that that general issue has been raised and I suspect that was what was raised with the former government in relation to any initial exemptions or exclusions, or whatever the appropriate word was that might have been applied at the time. There are clearly some issues that have been raised in relation to the ongoing viability. The former government was a huge supporter of the park. Considerable funding was provided by way of loans and/or grants to the particular project or venture by the former government, so there was certainly a strong degree of commitment from the former government.

Certainly, from the new government's viewpoint, we wish them well. It's a bold venture. I think the people of the Murray Bridge region are quite supportive generally and encouraging. The Murray Bridge region, as another member raised earlier this week, will be suffering in two years' time potential lost job opportunities, so clearly a successful motorsport venture, with all the tourism-related infrastructure, has the capacity potentially to provide additional job opportunities for locals and others at that particular venture. So it isn't the black and white issue that perhaps some might portray it as. These things are matters of balance. The former government has looked at it. It has now been raised with us as a new government. We are obviously, on the basis of the spokesperson's comments, considering it.

The PRESIDENT: The Hon. Mr Parnell, a supplementary.